Douglas's game of the week: Legend of Zelda: Adventure of Link

Legend of Zelda 2: Adventure of Link was released way back in the NES days. It is the sequel to the hit game Legend of Zelda.

Legend of Zelda 2: Adventure of link is here to remind us that Nintendo actually can make a bad game. Sure-It tries something new, but for everything it does right, it does about 4 or 5 things wrong. Adventure of Link is a perfectly-executed-bad-game in my opinion, like Shining Force and Grabbed by the Ghoulies.

One example of a thing Adventure of Link does right is the music-Sure, it may be boring and repetitive in some places, but the Last Temple theme is some of the best music I've ever heard on the NES. Sure-Some of us may not have the endurance to get that far, but if you could, you might like it. I also like the battle theme-It kind of stuck in my head.

Unfortunatley, Combat is at an all-time-low for the Zelda games. It looked easier because enemies can't attack from all Angles, and Castlevania did the same thing-But unfortunatley, in Castlevania, you use a whip that has RANGE. In Adventure of Link, you swing a sword that has the range of a knife. This means the enemies have to be literally 1 centimetre in front of you before you can even hit them. Also, it takes about a few seconds to attack, and by then, you will probably have already been hurt. This caused me to die about a million times.

The biggest drawback in the game is that it's really hard-Trying to endure the combat that's as sluggish as a mac with AOhell, the fact that you always wind up at the same place when you die, the immortal Stalfros, and that stupid Knife you are left with. Gar, I died about a million times because of that combat and most of them were when I was stuck fighting about 4 or 5 of those immortal Stalfros at the same time. ARRRGH!!

One of the few things the game does right is the overworld screen, and whenever you reach an enemy, you have to fight it. You enter a battle screen and then you have to kill all enemies. It's one of the few things the game does right, I'll give you that.

Overall, it would appear that Castlevania+Final Fantasy+Zelda=Zelda 2, but instead, it really turned out like this:
Castlevania+Final Fantasy+Zelda=Major headache (And a possible smashed up NES on the wall in frustration). Zelda 2 wound up terrible, but it did manage to do a few things right, such as the Monster encounters and the Great palace theme but everything else from the Immortal Stalfros and the sluggish combat was did TOTALLY WRONG!! 4.34/10

Pros:
Great Palace Music
Had Potential

Cons:
Sluggish Combat
Miniscule weapon range
Extreme difficulty

I thought it was pretty good. By the way, in action scenes, you don't HAVE to kill all the enemies. You can just avoid them and run out of the window, which is what I usually did.

And contrary to what most people say, I think the first one was harder.

The first one does have its hard points, but most of the enemies there were beatable.

YOU DARE?! AoL was one of the best Zelda games! Sounds like you can't handle a healthy challenge.

Dang youngsters with their "easy" difficulties and 64 bit graphics...

Originally posted by Marquess Douglas:
The first one does have its hard points, but most of the enemies there were beatable.

The Iron Knuckles were the hardest enemies, but even they were beatable. The hardest time I had was making it to the 6th palace while avoiding those dang invisible enemies.

Originally posted by Snarfoogle:
YOU DARE?! AoL was one of the best Zelda games! Sounds like you can't handle a healthy challenge.

Dang youngsters with their "easy" difficulties and 64 bit graphics...

Sounds like I may need to post a "Rules thread" for this forum.